Interesting Moral Dilemma for Pro-Lifers

[BFD_Zayl]

i would save the infant, why? because it can feel pain, someone loves it, and it is self aware, ergo it is alive. the embryos are just goop in a can. not a human being, at least not yet.

 

[Ðanisty]

Just because it "doesn't matter" to the subjective opinion of the mother doesn't change the fact that it is more artificial and requires extra steps unnecesary in natural conception.

I do not see how this makes a difference. Now, instead of distinguishing between born and unborn life (like many pro-choice people do), you are distinguishing between natural and unnatural life. However you look at it, you are deciding which life is sacred and which life is not. Why not just admit it? I'm more than willing to own up to the fact that I find born life more sacred than unborn life.

With the advancements of medicine and science, especially in industrialized nations, I'd venture to say that miscarriages are significantly lower than they have been in the rest of human history.

I'm not so convinced. Afterall, I've had four miscarriages.

Which again, is why I suggested adoption.

In some scenarios it's not an option, just like in this scenario where you've been told you have a choice and you can't do both. Would I like to go my whole life never having to make the choice between adoption and abortion? Of course, I'd prefer to never get pregnant in the first place. If I was in the situation where I must choose one, I choose abortion. At least I can back up my statements though. Your reluctance back up yours just comes off as hypocritical and probably isn't gaining you any respect. That's my 2 cents anyway.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

My choice, since you've pegged me as pro-choice, would be irrelevant to the OP.

Quit dodging. You've declared one to be of lesser evil. Since you've justified your choice by moral quantification/relativism, it would seem an easy thing for you to tell us how much value an embryo has relative to a person.

Simply put, if you say "less", i'll ask "how much less"?

Obviously, something like that cannot be quantitatively measured, which is why I asked you since I had no clue what you were looking for. I used the expression "lesser of two evils" to describe the situation because I find both to be bad options, but I think the better choice is to save the child, since the embryos are frozen, not developing, cannot feel pain, etc etc. I don't really know whwat more of an explanation you want from me.

FerventGodSeeker

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Why? If the fetus is a full-fledged person, what makes the mother's life more important than the life of the fetus?

Define "full-fledged". An unborn child is obviously not fully developed.

If I'm 100% certain to die without a heart transplant, do you accept the necessity of my killing you to get your heart?

Obviously not, I'm not a child inside your womb. The two situations are completely different.

FerventGodSeeker

 

[Smoke]

Define "full-fledged". An unborn child is obviously not fully developed.

Neither is a child who has been born. But we are always being told that a fetus -- and, for that matter, a zygote -- is a person with rights.

Obviously not, I'm not a child inside your womb. The two situations are completely different.

If we grant that the fetus is a person, then in each case we're killing one person so that another person may live. The medical situation is different, but not the moral situation.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

I do not see how this makes a difference. Now, instead of distinguishing between born and unborn life (like many pro-choice people do), you are distinguishing between natural and unnatural life. However you look at it, you are deciding which life is sacred and which life is not. Why not just admit it? I'm more than willing to own up to the fact that I find born life more sacred than unborn life.

Obviously I'm distinguishing between natural life and unnatural life, especially unnatural life which is frozen and undeveloping and must be aritificially induced to do so. That's why this situation isn't as simple as a child in the mother's womb, which is constantly growing and developin naturally. I don't know if I would call one life more "sacred", as I would say all life is sacred and valuable.

I'm not so convinced. Afterall, I've had four miscarriages.

I'm terribly sorry to hear that :sorry1: . I'm sorry for your loss. However, I think if you check out the statistics, miscarriages have decreased as medicine has improved.

In some scenarios it's not an option, just like in this scenario where you've been told you have a choice and you can't do both.

Why isn't adoption an option?

Would I like to go my whole life never having to make the choice between adoption and abortion? Of course, I'd prefer to never get pregnant in the first place. If I was in the situation where I must choose one, I choose abortion.

Why? Why not give the child a chance at life?

At least I can back up my statements though. Your reluctance back up yours just comes off as hypocritical and probably isn't gaining you any respect. That's my 2 cents anyway.

I'm sorry if I've come off as hypocritical in this thread, it certainly wasn't my intention to do so. As I told Pah, this situation is lose-lose for me as a Pro-Lifer, since SOMEONE has to die. So whether I choose the child or the embryos, someone will criticize and question me, and I won't be totally satisfied with my response either way.

FerventGodSeeker

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Neither is a child who has been born. But we are always being told that a fetus -- and, for that matter, a zygote -- is a person with rights.

And they are a person with rights. They have the right to live. However, in the situation where a mother is guaranteed to die if she gives birth, I don't think anyone should force her to die just to give birth to her child. The situation is certainly difficult and thus no answer is totally satisfactory, but that's how I feel about it.

If we grant that the fetus is a person, then in each case we're killing one person so that another person may live. The medical situation is different, but not the moral situation.

Except that I'm not related to you or dependent on you at all, which a child is to his/her mother. Thus, the moral situation is also different.

FerventGodSeeker

 

[standing_on_one_foot]

Well now, if it comes to that, can you be pro-life and approve of fertility clinics at all? I was under the impression that they always produce more embryos than they can use in a situation, which seems to be (assuming an embryo is a life) creating and then throwing away a lot of lives for the sake of one. Anyone know of any arguements about this?

 

[mr.guy]

Obviously, something like that cannot be quantitatively measured, which is why I asked you since I had no clue what you were looking for.

I gave you a simple equation where you could punch in with very good measure the relative value of the two:

1 baby = X amount of embryos

If, as your meandering insinuates, there is no surmountable value for X to balance this equation, (baby > infinite embryos) then the embryos are not of some murky "lesser" value, but have a value of nil. You could have just come out and said that.

I used the expression "lesser of two evils" to describe the situation because I find both to be bad options, but I think the better choice is to save the child, since the embryos are frozen, not developing, cannot feel pain, etc etc. I don't really know whwat more of an explanation you want from me.

They're worthless in contrast to what is a human life.

Next question:

If we removed a fetus from a woman, then froze it (so it would discontinue it's developement, and couldn't feel pain) would that not put it in the same league as our poor, crispy embryos? Which is to say, of decidedly lesser value (0) in contrast to a "unartificed" fetus.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

I gave you a simple equation where you could punch in with very good measure the relative value of the two:

1 baby = X amount of embryos

If, as your meandering insinuates, there is no surmountable value for X to balance this equation, (baby > infinite embryos) then the embryos are not of some murky "lesser" value, but have a value of nil. You could have just come out and said that.

So an immediately unquantifiable amount is automatically to be assumed worth nothing? That makes no sense at all. I simply said that "value" of a human life cannot be quantified like an equation. Value in a moral sense is an abstract concept. I suppose I could give an embryo an arbitrary value of 1, but that's really meaningless since we don't know what it is 1 of (1 pound, 1 gram, 1 joule, etc), and it is impossible to say how much more valuable the life of the mother is in comparison to it.

They're worthless in contrast to what is a human life.

No, they're not "worthless", although you could argue they are "worth less". There's a difference, a big one. Also, they are obviously human, they are the undeveloped offspring of two human mates. There's nothing for them to be BUT human: they're not frogs, they're not squirrels, they're not eagles; they're human.

Next question:

If we removed a fetus from a woman, then froze it (so it would discontinue it's developement, and couldn't feel pain) would that not put it in the same league as our poor, crispy embryos?

Yes, I'd say it would place it in the same category, although I don't know when that situation would ever realistically occur.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Well now, if it comes to that, can you be pro-life and approve of fertility clinics at all? I was under the impression that they always produce more embryos than they can use in a situation, which seems to be (assuming an embryo is a life) creating and then throwing away a lot of lives for the sake of one. Anyone know of any arguements about this?

If it were true that many or most of the embryos produced in a lab are thrown out, that would certainly help my argument in this case, although I don't know that to be fact.

FerventGodSeeker

 

[mr.guy]

So an immediately unquantifiable amount is automatically to be assumed worth nothing?

This is an irrelevant invention of your own. There is nothing here unquantified, save what you refuse to contribute directly.

I simply said that "value" of a human life cannot be quantified like an equation.

But it has been. You've decided:

baby > 600 embryos.

fact.

If you can come to this conclusion, yet insist that embryos are of "lesser" value, then eventually, enough additional embryos would trump 1 baby. If they cannot, they are relatively worthless.

Value in a moral sense is an abstract concept.

Value in all senses is abstract.

I suppose I could give an embryo an arbitrary value of 1, but that's really meaningless since we don't know what it is 1 of (1 pound, 1 gram, 1 joule, etc)

1 embyo.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

That makes no sense at all.

Isn't that what I just said? lol

But it has been. You've decided:

baby > 600 embryos.

fact.

I've decided, saving one breathing baby > saving 600 frozen undeveloping embryos, yes.

If you can come to this conclusion, yet insist that embryos are of "lesser" value, then eventually, enough additional embryos would trump 1 baby. If they cannot, they are relatively worthless.

Hm, not necesarily. I really think you're overanalysing this whole "lesser" thing. I was simply using an expression. I chose the child because the embryos are frozen and undeveloping, will not develop unless artificially induced to do so, and do not feel pain. I don't know what more of a response or explanation you want.

Value in all senses is abstract.

OK...thanks for emphasizing my point. lol

1 embyo.

Yeah, but "embryos" is not a measurement of something. We don't measure things in embryos. In asking, "How much is this embryo worth?", replying "It's worth one embryo," is obvious and redundant. It doesn't answer the question. You're asking what the quantitative measurement of the value an embryo is, and I simply don't know how to even go about ascribing a measurement system to ascertain the value of something like that. Perhaps you have suggestions?

FGS

 

[mr.guy]

Hm, not necesarily. I really think you're overanalysing this whole "lesser" thing. I was simply using an expression.

And you're dodging your own value assessments.

I chose the child because the embryos are frozen and undeveloping, will not develop unless artificially induced to do so, and do not feel pain.

Undeveloping. Artificed. Are these not detractions from the embyos value? If not, why mention them? You continually list qualities that devalue (in you estimation) the worth in rescueing these embryos; if you weren't, no such rationale as you've listed (such as it is) would be necessary or meaningful.

OK...thanks for emphasizing my point.

If your point is that nothing can ever be ascribed value, then you're welcome.

In asking, "How much is this embryo worth?", replying "It's worth one embryo,"

This is basically correct. The next question is, how many embryos are worth one baby? Imagine nickels, dimes and dollars, if it helps.

You're asking what the quantitative measurement of the value an embryo is, and I simply don't know how to even go about ascribing a measurement system to ascertain the value of something like that.

I've thrice given you the opportunity; if you can imagine a number of embryos (obviously higher than 600) that would have you rescuing them instead of the baby, then we'll have our number. This makes perfect sense, unless, of course, you don't think embryos are (by any means) viable humans.

Perhaps you have suggestions?

Algebra?

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

And you're dodging your own value assessments.

Not at all. I didn't ascribe them with a definitive value, I was using an expression.

Undeveloping. Artificed. Are these not detractions from the embyos value?

They are things that cause a breathing baby to be more favored in a life and death situation over them, yes.

If your point is that nothing can ever be ascribed value, then you're welcome.

If that's really your view, then I guess this whole insistence of yours that I ascribe a value to a group of embryos is really moot.

This is basically correct. The next question is, how many embryos are worth one baby? Imagine nickels, dimes and dollars, if it helps.

LOL. You're suggesting I ascribe a monetary to unborn children? Are you planning on selling the poor things??

I've thrice given you the opportunity; if you can imagine a number of embryos (obviously higher than 600) that would have you rescuing them instead of the baby, then we'll have our number. This makes perfect sense, unless, of course, you don't think embryos are (by any means) viable humans.

I simply don't know the answer to that question. I didn't make the decision based on the fact that there were a certain number of embryos involved, so that doesn't even come into consideration here.

Algebra?

How would algebra help me ascribe a measurement system to the situation to ascertain the quantitative value of an embryo? Again, let me just say that you are VASTLY overanalyzing the whole "lesser" concept.

I'm off to bed, see ya later.

FerventGodSeeker

 

[standing_on_one_foot]

Well, suppose we assume that in this case an existing human life is infinitely valuable, with the embryos approaching this value but not, in fact, of a value overriding all else. I mean, it does throw out the arguement that an embryo is a full human life, but I think that's not too far-fetched. It doesn't automatically mean that an embryo has no value that might override other things. They're clearly not viable humans. But potential is not without value (ah, moral grey areas, gotta love 'em).

 

[mr.guy]

I simply don't know the answer to that question. I didn't make the decision based on the fact that there were a certain number of embryos involved, so that doesn't even come into consideration here.

Which is to say, you can't imagine a high enough number of embryos that would coherce you into taking them instead of the baby?

I only ask at this stage to watch how you answer yet another direct question with lazy moral ascription, shameless dodging and deliberate misdirection.

 

[linwood]

You must spread some Karma around before giving it to[mr.guy] again.

Ok, lets flip this around.

Those here who would call themselves Pro-Choice.

If you were in a burning invitro clinic and knew there were 600 embryos in a single canister there.

Would you attempt to save them before escaping?

 

[Ðanisty]

You must spread some Karma around before giving it to[mr.guy] again.

I fruballed him for you.

Ok, lets flip this around.

Those here who would call themselves Pro-Choice.

If you were in a burning invitro clinic and knew there were 600 embryos in a single canister there.

Would you attempt to save them before escaping?

If the scenario is the same and I must make a choice, I would save the child and leave the embryos.

 

[Smoke]

Those here who would call themselves Pro-Choice.

If you were in a burning invitro clinic and knew there were 600 embryos in a single canister there.

Would you attempt to save them before escaping?

Sure, as long as you're not making us choose between the embryos and the baby.